## Bava Metzia Daf 100b

###### Bava Metzia 100b:1
[Bava Metzia 100b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:1)

כְּסוּת, מַה שֶּׁטְּעָנוֹ לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ, וּמַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה לוֹ לֹא טְעָנוֹ. כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא בִּדְלַיְיפִי – הָכָא נָמֵי בִּדְלַיְיפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges Shmuel’s interpretation: If the dispute is over which size **garment** was sold, the seller should not be required to take an oath, as **that which** the buyer **claimed from him,** the seller **did not admit to** at all, **and that which** the seller **admitted to,** the buyer **had not claimed from him.** The Gemara answers: Shmuel was referring to a case **like that** which **Rav Pappa said** below: The dispute is **with regard to** a garment that was formed from several pieces of cloth that were **attached** together. **Here too,** the dispute is **with regard to** a garment that was formed from several pieces of cloth that were **attached** together, and the disagreement was about how much of that garment was actually sold.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:2
[Bava Metzia 100b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:2)

קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: מִידֵּי ״כְּסוּת״ קָתָנֵי? ״עֶבֶד״ קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Hoshaya** found Shmuel’s interpretation **difficult: Does** the mishna **teach: A garment?** No, **it teaches: A slave.** How can Shmuel claim the dispute was about a garment?


###### Bava Metzia 100b:3
[Bava Metzia 100b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁטְּעָנוֹ עֶבֶד בִּכְסוּתוֹ וְשָׂדֶה בָּעוֹמָרֶיהָ. וְאַכַּתִּי כְּסוּת, מַה שֶּׁטְּעָנוֹ – לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ, וּמַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה לוֹ – לֹא טְעָנוֹ! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בִּדְלַיְיפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Hoshaya said:** The mishna is referring to a case **where** the buyer **claimed a** large **slave** along **with his garment, or** where he claimed a large **field** along **with its sheaves.** Since the seller admits to the part of the claim about the garment or sheaves, he is required to take an oath about them. Once he is required to take that oath, it can be extended to require him to take an oath even concerning the claim about the slave or field itself. The Gemara asks: **But still,** in the dispute over which type of **garment** was sold, **that which** the buyer **claimed from him,** the seller **did not admit to** at all, **and that which** the seller **admitted to,** the buyer **had not claimed from him.** The Gemara answers: **Rav Pappa said:** The dispute is **with regard to** a garment that was formed from several pieces of cloth that were **attached** together, and the dispute concerns how much of that garment was actually sold.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:4
[Bava Metzia 100b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:4)

קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: זוֹקְקִין אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן?! תְּנֵינָא: זוֹקְקִין הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת לִישָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet** found Rabbi Hoshaya’s interpretation **difficult:** Does the mishna **come** only **to teach us** the *halakha* of **binding?** But **we** already **learned** that *halakha* in a mishna (*Kiddushin* 26a): Generally, one is not obligated to take an oath concerning the denial of a claim with regard to land. In a legal dispute involving both land and movable property, if the defendant admits to part of the claim with regard to the movable property, thereby rendering himself obligated to take an oath denying any responsibility for the remaining property, the movable property **binds the property that serves as a guarantee,** i.e., the land, so that he is forced **to take an oath concerning** the land as well.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:5
[Bava Metzia 100b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עַבְדָּא כְּמִטַּלְטְלִין דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Sheshet said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? It **is Rabbi Meir, who said:** The legal status of **a slave is like** that of **movable property.** Even if the dispute is over the slave alone, the seller can be required to take an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:6
[Bava Metzia 100b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:6)

וְאַכַּתִּי: מַה שֶּׁטְּעָנוֹ – לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ, וּמַה שֶּׁהוֹדָה לוֹ – לֹא טְעָנוֹ! סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דִּתְנַן: טְעָנוֹ חִטִּים וְהוֹדָה שְׂעוֹרִים – פָּטוּר, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still,** if the dispute is over which slave was sold, then **that which** the buyer **claimed from him,** the seller **did not admit to** at all, **and that which** the seller **admitted to,** the buyer **had not claimed from him.** The seller should not therefore be required to take an oath. The Gemara answers: The *tanna* of the mishna **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel, as we learned** in a mishna (*Shevuot* 38b): If one **claimed wheat from** another, **and** the defendant **admitted** only **to** owing him **barley,** the defendant is **exempt** from having to take an oath; but **Rabban Gamliel deems him liable.**


###### Bava Metzia 100b:7
[Bava Metzia 100b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:7)

אַכַּתִּי הֵילָךְ הוּא! אָמַר רָבָא: עַבְדָּא דִּקְטַע לִידֵיהּ, וְשָׂדֶה שֶׁחָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Still,** with regard to the small slave, **this is** a case of: **Here you are,** as the slave is immediately available to be taken. The small slave is not considered part of the buyer’s claim, as his claim is limited to the difference between the values of the slaves, and that amount is being entirely denied. Consequently, there should be no requirement to take an oath. To resolve this difficulty, **Rava said:** In the case of **the slave,** the mishna is referring to a case **where,** after the sale, the seller **severed** the slave’s **hand, and** in the case of the **field,** it is a case **where,** after the sale, the seller **dug pits, ditches and caves in it,** and therefore he cannot say: Here you are.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:8
[Bava Metzia 100b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:8)

וְהָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: גָּזַל בְּהֵמָה וְהִזְקִינָה, עֲבָדִים וְהִזְקִינוּ – מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵילָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בַּעֲבָדִים אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers another challenge to Rav Sheshet’s interpretation: **But didn’t Rabbi Meir teach us the opposite? As we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 96b): If one **robbed** another of **an animal and it aged** and declined in value while in his possession, or if one robbed another of Canaanite **slaves and they aged,** since they are no longer in the condition that they were in when he robbed them, he cannot return them in their current state to his victim; rather, **he pays according to** their value at **the time of the robbery. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to slaves, he says to** the victim: **That which is yours is before you** and no compensation is required. Apparently, Rabbi Meir holds that the legal status of a slave is like that of land, and not, as Rav Sheshet said, like that of movable property.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:9
[Bava Metzia 100b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:9)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְמַחְלֵיף רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ וְתָנֵי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵילָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אוֹמֵר לוֹ בַּעֲבָדִים ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** is **not difficult.** Rav Sheshet apparently holds **like Rabba bar Avuh, who reverses** the attribution of the opinions in that mishna **and teaches: Rabbi Meir says: He pays according to** their value **at the time of the robbery. And the Rabbis say: With regard to slaves, he says to** the victim: **That which is yours is before you** and no compensation is required.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:10
[Bava Metzia 100b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:10)

אֶלָּא מִמַּאי דְּסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַקְּשִׁינַן קַרְקַע לְעֶבֶד: מָה עֶבֶד נִשְׁבָּעִין – אַף קַרְקַע נִשְׁבָּעִין? דִּלְמָא אַעֶבֶד הוּא דְּנִשְׁבָּעִין, אֲבָל אַקַּרְקַע לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since Rav Sheshet interprets the mishna as referring to a case where the dispute is over the slave alone and interprets it to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he apparently also assumes that Rabbi Meir holds that an oath is taken even with regard to a claim of land, as his explanation would need to account for the case in the mishna concerning a dispute over the small or large field. The Gemara questions this assumption: **But** given that Rabbi Meir said only that the legal status of a slave is like that of movable property, **from where** does Rav Sheshet learn **that Rabbi Meir holds that we compare land to a slave,** so that **just as** for a claim about **a slave, an oath is taken, so too,** for a claim about **land, an oath is taken? Perhaps** Rabbi Meir holds that **an oath is taken** only **on** a claim about **a slave but not on** a claim about **land.**


###### Bava Metzia 100b:11
[Bava Metzia 100b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:11)

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּחְלִיף פָּרָה בַּחֲמוֹר וְיָלְדָה, וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שִׁפְחָתוֹ וְיָלְדָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It should **not enter your mind** that Rabbi Meir makes a distinction between slaves and land in this regard, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who exchanges a cow for a donkey,** such that by virtue of the cow owner’s act of acquisition on the donkey, the donkey’s erstwhile owner simultaneously acquires the cow, wherever it happens to be located, **and** afterward the cow is found to have **calved; and similarly,** with regard to **one who sells his** Canaanite **maidservant,** with the acquisition effected by the buyer giving him money, **and** afterward **she** is found to have **given birth** to a child, who will be a slave belonging to his mother’s master, at times it is uncertain whether the offspring was born before or after the transaction.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:12
[Bava Metzia 100b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:12)

זֶה אוֹמֵר: בִּרְשׁוּתִי, וְזֶה שׁוֹתֵק – זָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **this** seller **says:** The birth occurred while the cow or maidservant was still **in my possession, and that** buyer **remains silent,** the seller is **entitled** to take the offspring.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:13
[Bava Metzia 100b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:13)

זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **this** one **says: I do not know** what happened, **and that** one **says: I do not know** what happened, **they divide** the value of the offspring between them.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:14
[Bava Metzia 100b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:14)

זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״בִּרְשׁוּתִי״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״בִּרְשׁוּתִי״ – יִשָּׁבַע הַמּוֹכֵר שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּתוֹ יָלְדָה, לְפִי שֶׁכׇּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נִשְׁבָּעִין וְלֹא מְשַׁלְּמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין לֹא עַל הָעֲבָדִים וְלֹא עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **this** seller **says:** The birth occurred while the cow or maidservant was still **in my possession, and that** buyer **says:** The birth occurred after the cow or maidservant was already **in my possession,** then **the seller takes an oath** stating **that** the cow or maidservant **gave birth in his possession** and he is then entitled to take the offspring. This is **because** for **anyone who takes an oath** required **by Torah law,** he **takes** the **oath and does not** have to **pay.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: One does not take an oath, not on** a claim concerning **slaves and not on** a claim concerning **land.**


###### Bava Metzia 100b:15
[Bava Metzia 100b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:15)

לָאו מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר נִשְׁבָּעִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains its proof from this *baraita*: Since the Rabbis replied to Rabbi Meir that an oath is not taken on a claim concerning slaves or land, **is it not** correct that **by inference, Rabbi Meir holds** that one can **take an oath** on a claim concerning either slaves or land?


###### Bava Metzia 100b:16
[Bava Metzia 100b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:16)

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא ״כְּשֵׁם״ קָאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאוֹדֵית לַן בְּקַרְקָעוֹת – אוֹדִי לַן נָמֵי בַּעֲבָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this inference: But **from where** is this inferred? **Perhaps** the Rabbis **are speaking to him** utilizing the style of: **Just as,** and they are saying as follows: **Just as you concede to us with regard to land, concede to us also with regard to slaves.**


###### Bava Metzia 100b:17
[Bava Metzia 100b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:17)

תִּדַּע, דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כַּקַּרְקַע וְאֵינָן כַּקַּרְקַע. וְאֵין חֲכָמִים מוֹדִים לוֹ. כֵּיצַד? עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים טְעוּנוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: אֵינָן אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע – הֲרֵי הוּא כַּקַּרְקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **Know** that Rabbi Meir holds that one does not take an oath for a claim concerning land, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Shevuot* 42b): **Rabbi Meir says: There are** some **matters that** have a legal status **like** that of **land, but** nevertheless, with regard to oaths **they are not** treated **like land** and so one takes an oath with regard to them. **But the Rabbis do not concede** to Rabbi Meir that this is the *halakha*. **How so?** If one claims: **I delivered ten vines laden** with grapes **to you, and the other says: There were only five; Rabbi Meir deems him liable** to take an oath of one who admits to part of a claim. **But the Rabbis say: Anything that is attached to the ground has** a legal status **like** that of **land,** so no oath is taken with regard to them.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:18
[Bava Metzia 100b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:18)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: עֲנָבִים הָעוֹמְדוֹת לִיבָּצֵר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. דְּמָר סָבַר: כִּבְצוּרוֹת דָּמְיָין, וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו כִּבְצוּרוֹת דָּמְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the scope of the dispute: **And Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says:** The difference **between them** is only in a case of **grapes that are ready to be picked, as** one **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds: They are considered as** though they were already **harvested,** meaning that they are regarded as movable property, with regard to which an oath is taken. **And** the other **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds: They are not considered as** though they were about to be **picked,** meaning that they are regarded as land, with regard to which an oath is not taken. Evidently, Rabbi Meir agrees that an oath is not taken concerning land.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:19
[Bava Metzia 100b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:19)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כִּדְרַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא, וּדְקַשְׁיָא לָךְ זוֹקְקִין? אִיצְטְרִיךְ: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא כְּסוּת עֶבֶד כְּעֶבֶד דָּמֵי, עוֹמְרֵי שָׂדֶה כְּשָׂדֶה דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, actually** the mishna can be explained only **in accordance with** the interpretation **of Rabbi Hoshaya,** cited above. **And** with regard to **that which posed a difficulty to you,** namely that according to his explanation, the novelty of the mishna is only that movable property **binds** land so that one can be required to take an oath with regard to it, and that *halakha* is already taught in the mishna in tractate *Kiddushin*, one can explain that it **was necessary** to also teach this in the mishna here, because it might **enter your mind to say** that the **garment of a slave is like** the **slave** himself, or that **sheaves of a field are like** the **field** itself. If so, there would be no basis to require an oath, even one based on the claims about the garment and sheaves themselves. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that they are considered distinct items and the claims concerning them require the seller to take an oath which can then be extended to require an oath for the claim concerning the slave or land.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:20
[Bava Metzia 100b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:20)

זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – יַחְלוֹקוּ. הָא מַנִּי – סוֹמְכוֹס הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק – חוֹלְקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara analyzes one of the clauses of the *baraita* cited above: In a case in which it is unclear when the cow or maidservant gave birth, if **this** one **says: I do not know** what happened, **and that** one **says: I do not know** what happened, **they divide** the value of the offspring between them. The Gemara asks: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this?** It **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Sumakhos, who says:** When there is **property of uncertain ownership,** the parties **divide** it equally between them.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:21
[Bava Metzia 100b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:21)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: זֶה אוֹמֵר ״בִּרְשׁוּתִי״ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״בִּרְשׁוּתִי״ – יִשָּׁבַע הַמּוֹכֵר שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּתוֹ יָלְדָה, וּלְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר: אִין, אָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס אֲפִילּוּ בָּרִי וּבָרִי, אַמַּאי יִשָּׁבַע מוֹכֵר? ״יַחְלוֹקוּ״ מִיבַּעְיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this attribution: If so, **say** and try to explain accordingly **the latter clause** of that *baraita*: If **this** seller **says:** The birth occurred while the cow or maidservant was still **in my possession, and that** buyer **says:** The birth occurred after the cow or maidservant was already **in my possession,** then **the seller takes an oath** stating **that it gave birth in his possession,** and he is then entitled to take the offspring. The Gemara explains the difficulty: **But according to** the opinion of **Rabba bar Rav Huna, who says: Yes, Sumakhos said** his ruling **even** in a case in which there is a conflict between **a certain** claim **and a certain** claim, **why** does the mishna rule that the **seller takes an oath;** the mishna **should have** ruled that **they divide** the value of the disputed offspring between them.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:22
[Bava Metzia 100b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:22)

מוֹדֶה סוֹמְכוֹס הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שְׁבוּעָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּדְקַטְעַהּ לִידַהּ כִּדְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Sumakhos concedes** that **where there is** a requirement for one of the parties to take **an oath** required **by Torah law,** that the disputed amount is not divided. And furthermore, this is not a case in which the seller could say: Here you are, because the case is where after the sale, the seller **severed** the slave’s **hand,** just **like** in the explanation **of Rava** above.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:23
[Bava Metzia 100b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:23)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמּוֹכֵר זֵיתָיו לְעֵצִים, וְעָשׂוּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעִית לַסְּאָה – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַזֵּיתִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who sells his olive trees** to another so he can chop them down and use them **for** their **wood, and** before he chopped them down **they yielded** olives, if the olives are of a quality that could provide the value of **less than a quarter**-*log* of oil **per *se’a*** of olives, **these** olives are the property **of** the new **owner of the olive trees,** i.e., the buyer.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:24
[Bava Metzia 100b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:24)

עָשׂוּ רְבִיעִית לַסְּאָה, זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״זֵיתַי גִּדֵּלוּ״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״אַרְצִי גִּדֵּלָה״ – יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **they yielded** olives that could provide the value of **a quarter**-*log* or more of oil **per *se’a*** of olives, and **this** one, the buyer, **says: My olive trees yielded** the olives and so I have a right to them, **and that** one, the seller, **says:** The nourishment from **my land yielded** the olives and so I have a right to them, then **they divide** the olives between them.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:25
[Bava Metzia 100b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:25)

שָׁטַף נָהָר זֵיתָיו וּנְתָנָם לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ, זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״זֵיתַי גִּדֵּלוּ״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״אַרְצִי גִּדֵּלָה״ – יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the event that **a river swept away one’s olive trees and deposited them in** the **field of another,** and they took root there and yielded olives, **this** one, i.e., the owner of the trees, **says: My olive trees yielded** the olives and so I have a right to them, **and that** one, i.e., the owner of the field, **says:** The nourishment from **my land yielded** the olives and so I have a right to them, then **they divide** the olives between them.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:26
[Bava Metzia 100b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:26)

**גְּמָ׳** הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ קוֹץ לְאַלְתַּר – אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעִית נָמֵי לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע. אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ כֹּל אֵימַת דְּבָעֵית קוֹץ – אֲפִילּוּ רְבִיעִית נָמֵי לְבַעַל זֵיתִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of the sale? **If** this is a case **where** before the sale the seller **said to** the buyer: **Cut down** the trees **immediately,** then clearly he is particular that the buyer not derive benefit from the nourishment provided by his land. Therefore, **even** if the olives yielded could provide **less than** the value of **a quarter**-*log* of oil per *se’a* of olives, they will belong **to the owner of the land,** i.e., the seller. Conversely, **if** the case is **where he said to him: Cut down** the trees **whenever you want,** then it is clear that he is not particular about the buyer deriving benefit from the nourishment provided by his land. Therefore, **even** if the olives yielded could provide the value of **a quarter**-*log* or more of oil per *se’a* of olives, they will belong **to the owner of the olive trees,** i.e., the buyer.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:27
[Bava Metzia 100b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:27)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ סְתָמָא: פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעִית – לָא קָפְדִי אִינָשֵׁי, רְבִיעִית – קָפְדִי אִינָשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **No,** the ruling is **necessary** in a case **where** the seller **said to him** to cut down the trees, **without specification** about when he should do so. Accordingly, if the olives yielded produce **less than** the value of **a quarter**-*log* of oil per *se’a* of olives, then since **people are** generally **not particular** to receive their share of such olives, the buyer may keep them. But where the olives yielded produce the value of **a quarter**-*log* or more of oil per *se’a* of olives, **people are** generally **particular** to receive their share of such olives; consequently, they divide the olives between them.


###### Bava Metzia 100b:28
[Bava Metzia 100b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/100b:28)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: וּרְבִיעִית שֶׁאָמְרוּ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says: And** the value of the **quarter**-*log* **that they mentioned** in the mishna